On the other hand, Intel's 2008 roadmap shows every segment simultaneously
deploying 45nm products. Like AMD's recent 65nm Brisbane
launch, Intel guidance notes the processors will start shipping Q4'07
but the actual launch will come as a coordinated 2008 event.

The first Intel 45nm treatments will come from the quad-core Yorkfield and
dual-core Wolfdale desktop processors. Wolfdale has two
physical cores on a single die and up to 6MB of L2 cache. Yorkfield is then two Wolfdale dice on a single package. Also worth
noting: Wolfdale ships with a 1333MHz front-side bus and Yorkfield ships
with a 1066MHz front-side bus. Chipset support will largely come from Bearlake-family
that was previouslydisclosed on DailyTech.

Perhaps the most interesting thing about these two processors is the return of
Hyper-Threading. This, however, does not mean that Yorkfield will
appear as eight logical cores, nor does it mean Wolfdale will appear as
four logical cores. Intel's internal guidance on the subject specifically
claims the processor will ship with Hyper-Threading, but will only utilize 4
threads. On every Intel roadmap in the past, Hyper-Threading doubles the
amount of listed threads in the guidance documentation. Clearly, there is
more of a mystery here still. (Update: Please read the retraction below.)

"The official company policy is that our engineers have left the door open
for Hyper-Threading, but we cannot confirm or deny any future plans for the
technology," adds Intel Public Relations Manager Dan Snyder.

All Penryn cores also include Intel TXT, previously known as Intel LaGrande Technology. TXT stands for Trusted Execution Technology and refers to the collection of devices. The Trusted Platform Module, or TPM, is one component. DMA page protection is another.

Alas, even if 2008 seems like a long time away for the 45nm platform, it's
important to note that all Intel platforms will have 45nm SKUs in Q1'08. Penryn,
the family name for Intel's first generation 45nm consumer CPUs, also refers
specifically to the 45nm dual-core mobile CPU. Intel's current roadmap
claims this processor will lead the Q1'08 mobile push with several low voltage
models coming one quarter later.

For servers, Wolfdale will make an appearance as a dual and single
socket Xeon. It's been long-standing Intel policy to separate desktop,
mobile and server chipsets into different products; Conroe was the Core
2 desktop CPU and Woodcrest, though physically nearly identical, was the
Xeon counterpart. Wolfdale as a server and a desktop CPU indicates
the chips are electrically identical -- though each will likely receive
different packaging for the different sockets.

Yorkfield will not receive the same codenaming treatment as Wolfdale on
the server. Instead, Harpertown will be the quad-core Xeon for two
socket servers. Yorkfield will still be the company’s single-socket
quad-core Xeon offering.

Update 01/31/2007: Channel sources have reached out to DailyTech to emphasize that the addition of Hyper-Threading to Penryn-family processors in 2008 is incorrect and the result of dated channel data. My feelings and thoughts about the retraction can be read on my blog.

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

I agree, that the benefit of HT is less clear for multi-core. But I also think the performance hit for having it enabled is also overstated. I have a Presler EE, which is dual-core with HT, and I have HT enabled (four virtual processors). But I also tend to run quite a few apps at a time.

Theres not much point in testing HT with one thread. On a truely single threaded OS, HT and no HT are exactly the same. You need to actually have 2+ threads running before HT can be used. Otherwise the HT logic is just idle and you effectively have a non-HT processor. Sort of like how a dual core CPU run on Windows 98 is basically a single core CPU.

I don't think that spending the time or money now would make much performance difference. My processor has a WEI of 5.2, with all the other components of my system having WEI scores of 5.7-5.9. A CPU upgrade would surely increase the CPU score a bit, but probably not enough to be worth the time and money. I'll wait another year probably.

Are you disputing my conclusion, my methodology, or just giving me grief for the heck of it? Are you saying that you feel that the WEI CPU score is a poor indicator of CPU performance? What are you saying exactly?